Employers Cannot Take Advantage of Their Own Illegality to Deny Rights of Disabled Employees: Allahabad High Court Directs Reinstatement of Disabled Bus Driver with Salary Arrears

“Denial of Light Duties to Disabled Employee Is an Unlawful Breach of Statutory Mandates Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act”: In a landmark decision Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Bhanot, condemned the refusal of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to allocate light duties to a disabled bus driver despite repeated medical recommendations. The Court categorically held, “The respondent authorities cannot take advantage of their own omissions to deny rights vested in the petitioner by law”, setting aside the impugned rejection order and directing full salary arrears, reinstatement on light duties, and systemic institutional reforms within UPSRTC.

Muhammad Naeem, a bus driver employed by the UPSRTC, developed a 40% permanent locomotor disability during service. From March 2022, he persistently requested allocation of light duties in line with his disability. Medical boards constituted by the Chief Medical Officers of Hamirpur and Lucknow, along with a specialised medical board from King George’s Medical University, categorically certified his disability and unanimously recommended assignment of light duties.

However, the Corporation dismissed his legitimate claim citing the absence of designated light duty posts, despite prior High Court directions to consider his application. Aggrieved by this systemic disregard for his statutory rights, Naeem approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court was called upon to adjudicate whether UPSRTC’s refusal to assign light duties violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), particularly Sections 20, 21, and 33, and whether such refusal constituted an infringement of the constitutional guarantees against discrimination.

Justice Ajay Bhanot unequivocally held that the petitioner’s rights were grossly violated. Emphasizing the protective framework of the RPwD Act, the Court held:
“Section 20 prohibits discrimination in employment, Section 21 mandates equal opportunity policies, and Section 33 compels identification of posts suitable for persons with disabilities. The impugned order flouts all three provisions and stands vitiated” (Para 18).

The Court noted with dismay that despite multiple medical board confirmations, “the correspondences of the department not only disclose non-application of mind, but also display callous attitude to the plight of an employee who is suffering from disability, and a disconcerting disregard for the law” (Para 19).

Analyzing the legislative intent, Justice Bhanot reminded the authorities of the core objective of the RPwD Act:
“The persons with disabilities enjoy various rights such as right to equality, life with dignity, respect for his or her integrity equally with others… duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Government have been enumerated” (Para 10).

On the Corporation’s attempt to justify the denial of light duty on the ground that no such posts were designated, the Court held:
“The respondents cannot rely on their own illegal failure to identify suitable posts to defeat the legitimate rights of persons with disabilities… Non-compliance with Section 33 creates a discriminatory regime and subverts the entire scheme of equality under the Act” (Para 18).

The Court highlighted that Section 20(4) specifically protects employees who acquire disabilities during service and mandates reallocation to suitable posts without reduction in pay scale or service benefits.
“The legislative command is categorical—no employee who acquires disability can be removed, instead must be assigned appropriate duties with full service entitlements”, observed the Court (Para 14).

Further, the Court exposed the systemic failure of UPSRTC in framing an Equal Opportunity Policy as required by Section 21, stating,
“The absence of clearly identified posts for persons with disabilities negates equal opportunity contemplated by Section 21 and results in rampant discrimination” (Para 18).

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court delivered an elaborate set of directions:

• “The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue on light duties and pay his salary regularly as due” (Para 23.I).

• “Full salary arrears from March 2022 to be paid with 7% interest within four months” (Para 23.II).

• “Institutional reforms are mandated within six months—sensitization of officers, issuance of proper orders, and regular audits on RPwD Act implementation” (Para 23.III).

• “A penalty of ₹50,000 shall be imposed if salary arrears and interest are not paid timely, recoverable from responsible officers” (Para 23.IV).

Through this emphatic judgment, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory rights conferred under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and made it unequivocally clear that public employers cannot shield their non-compliance by denying rightful entitlements to disabled employees. Justice Bhanot concluded:
“Denial of light duties to the petitioner is not just administrative indifference but a direct infringement of statutory rights… this Court will not allow systemic non-compliance to eclipse the dignity and livelihood of persons with disabilities” (Para 22-24).

This judgment not only grants full relief to Muhammad Naeem but also serves as a judicial directive for systemic reform within the public employment sector, reminding authorities that statutory obligations towards disabled persons are not optional but mandatory mandates.

Date of Decision: 9th July 2025